Sunday, March 9, 2014

The last chip in the comparison is the Z16F2810. When I started the tests I got a Loop overhead time of only 0.64, which made me think the chip might be very fast. When I moved on to the multiplication and division tests, though, some of them completed in only 0.89 seconds. After looking at the assembly generated during compilation I noticed that the arguments of division were only being copied to the register that holds the answer. It seems that even though all the variables were declared as volatile, the compiler decided to optimize the division out anyway. This made me think the compiler was simply ignoring the volatile keyword but the assembly generated when accessing volatiles is slightly different. Loops involving them take about 25% longer to run, so it does have an effect. The only way I could prevent it from optimizing out multiplies and divides while keeping optimizations was to declare the involved variables globally. The User Manual for the chip helped a lot when looking at this problem and I think it is really well done.

For arithmetic operations, the chip did very well. It was always faster than the MSP430 and almost as fast as the LPC1114 for most things. One place it did very well was division where it outperformed all the other chips by a large margin because it has a hardware divider. General GPIO is also pretty fast, although it does not have any special mechanism for speeding it up like the masks on the LPC1114 or the constant generator on the MSP430. BCD Add was about the same as the MSP430. BCD Multiply was faster than on the MSP430 but still much slower than on the LPC1114.

After running all the chips, here are my conclusions:

MSP430Easy to use and reasonably fast. Good choice for small jobs and low-power projects. Held back by low clock speed (16MHz), small memory, and lack of hardware multiplier.

LPC1114The fastest chip by far for everything but division and 8 bit math. Lots of RAM and Flash. Straightforward to use, although there is no real community. Very fast GPIO with masks. Top choice for calculations.

DS89C450Fast for 8 bit math, although slow at shifting. Very fast GPIO since each GPIO pin is mapped to its own byte in memory. Extremely slow at BCD calculations. The only real advantage is the external memory bus.

AT89LP6440Similar to the DS89C450 but lower clock speed and performance.

Z16F2810Good performance but inferior to the LPC1114 in everything but dividing. Debugger is very useful but the IDE itself is sometimes clunky. Enough RAM and very big Flash (128kB). PLCC package is inconvenient.

In the future I plan to do a few more projects that will need the extra horsepower for the LPC1114. For other smaller jobs I will stick with the MSP430.

Saturday, March 8, 2014

The last chip in the comparison of microcontrollers is the Z16F2810. It comes in PLCC and is the only part in the ZNEO line that isn't QFP only. In order to program the chip I soldered a PLCC socket to perfboard with headers for one of the GPIO ports and for an FTDI cable.

In the beginning I was excited about the PLCC socket but it turned out to be somewhat inconvenient to solder due to all the jumper wires needed to reach the inside row of pins. Next I connected the chip to the FTDI cable and tried to access it over UART as described in this Application Note about the bootloader. I had overlooked that the UART bootloader is not part of the ROM and has to be loaded over the one-wire interface normally used to program the chip. Until I realized this I removed the chip several times looking for faults in the circuit and managed to crack the socket with a screwdriver on the third removal. Zilog sells a specialized cable for programming their chips through the debug pin and I hoped to make something similar that would work over an FTDI cable. One forum post I found was really helpful. It showed what the cable looks like inside:

It seemed pretty unlikely that I could recreate this on my own. Later in the post someone mentioned that some of the Zilog documents show how to program the chip with a serial cable and only one diode. All I had to do was solder the diode and a 10k pull-up to the debug pin to make it work with the FTDI cable.

The next hurdle was the software. The picture above shows a USB SmartCable which will work with the ZNEO version of the ZDSII software Zilog offers for programming and debugging. The ZNEO version of ZDSII does not, however, work with the Serial SmartCable which the FTDI cable would replace. The Z8 Encore! version of ZDSII does support the cable. The same forum post explains that you can simply copy the file SerialSmartCable.xdt from the debugtools directory of the Z8 version to the debugtools directory of the ZNEO version. You will also need a copy of the file NxZNeoSerial.dll. Another website, also in German, explains that a copy of this file comes with Smart Flash Programmer 2.2.0.

The ZDSII IDE works well enough for writing code, although I still prefer to use Code::Blocks. The debugger is really handy. You can set break points and look at the disassembly compared to the C source as the program is running, as well as examine memory and registers. It is a little unwieldy, however, to go through the whole process of disconnecting, compiling, reconnecting, transferring, and restarting every time code is recompiled. In my opinion there should be a single button to recompile and run code. Another small gripe is that when code starts to run, the debugger automatically halts on the first instruction and jumps to that place in the source. Unfortunately, that is always start-up code, so every time you press Go it opens the start-up assembly file supplied with the compiler and waits for you to continue. This is just annoying since it has to be closed every time.

The IDE uses make with its own compiler. Running this compiler from the command line shows that there are many compiler options but the only one available in the IDE is "Limit Optimizations for Easier Debugging." There is no way from the IDE to specify arguments to optimize for speed or size specifically. You can, however, export a makefile from the IDE and run make on its own. Doing this I was able to edit the makefile to add the flags for speed and size optimizations but neither of them produced any difference. I copy the file generated by make to the output directory of an empty project that I keep open in the IDE. Because compiling is done outside of the IDE, I can upload the file to the chip without having to disconnect and reconnect.

Monday, March 3, 2014

The next chip to test is the AT89LP6440. This is a single-cycle 8052 compatible like the DS89C450. It can run from an internal oscillator at 8MHz or an external crystal up to 20MHz like I am using. According to the datasheet, total capacitance for the crystal should not exceed 20pF and the chip itself adds about 10pF of that. The smallest capacitors I can find are 22pF so I ran it without capacitors and it seems to work fine on a breadboard.

As you might imagine, the AT89LP6440 performs similarly to the DS89C450 at 20MHz. The times are not exactly the same, though, because both chips perform some instructions in less cycles than original 8051s. This is apparent, for example, in the multiply times where the AT89LP6440 can do 32 bit multiplication about 30% faster because it does multiplies in 2 cycles instead of the 4 cycles needed by the DS89C450 and standard 8051s. The AT89LP6440 also shifted about 5% faster in the tests, although it was a little slower at BCD calculations. Like the DS89C450, I don't think I will end up using this in a calculator but it may come in handy because it can run at 3 volts and has an external memory interface.

Sunday, March 2, 2014

Using an FTDI cable to program the AT89LP6440 like I mentioned in my last post turned out to be more difficult than I expected. Configuring the FT232 chip is a real pain because the reset command in the API does not seem to actually reset any of the chip settings to default. After trying some more tweaking I noticed that the uploading itself inexplicably hangs sometimes on longer files. I was not able to finish the next step of the microcontroller comparison. According to another page, FTDI states that "using bitbanging for SPI or I2C is not recommended with the FT232RL part."

The next step was to use an MSP430 to take data in over UART and relay it over SPI to the AT89LP6440. The UART interface of the DS89C450 works really well so I copied this. The MSP430 gives a prompt over UART that can be used to erase the chip, load or verify firmware, and set flags. The challenge of the project was coordinating interrupts and ring buffers for the hardware UART and SPI peripherals so that no data is missed. At 9600 baud it worked reliably but at higher speeds there were checksum errors because sometimes the previous UART byte was not read before the next one came in. This seems to happen at the end of a line of hex when the MSP430 has to send a lot of data out over SPI to prepare the chip for writing. The solution was to send an XOFF character back to the terminal, which stops it from sending any more data bytes until an XON character is sent. Like this I can program at 57.6k and after a few dozen tries I have not had any errors writing to the chip or verifying the firmware. The MSP430 is also connected to the reset line of the AT89LP6440 so that I can put the chip in run mode without having to press any buttons on the breadboard.